- From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 22:06:13 +0200
- To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Cc: public-webid@w3.org
- Message-Id: <9BC6DDFB-B6FF-4C9D-B0ED-87D394EE08DC@bblfish.net>
On 1 Apr 2013, at 21:45, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote: > On 4/1/13 3:15 PM, Henry Story wrote: >> We can add new relations. Just let us know what you want. I am not sure why you want to merge two relations. You have not explained this yet, nor have you given a full use case. >> >> As far as X509 goes if you look at it it is relating a DN and its subject alternative names to a public key. >> If you think of that semantically that can be modelled as >> >> <> a X509Cert; >> foaf:primaryTopic<ldap://DN=....> ; >> <ldap://DN=....> owl:sameAs<https://my.domain.example/joe#me>; >> cert:key [ a cert:RSAPublicKey; >> cert:modulus "..."; >> cert:exponent "..." ] . > > Why not: > > <#dnReferentID> > <#hasKey> <#PublicKey> . > <#sanReferentID> > <#hasKey> <#PublicKey> . > > <#hasKey> > a owl:InverseFunctionalProperty, owl:ObjectProperty . If <#hasKey> owl:sameAs cert:key, then what you wrote is equivalent to what I wrote above. Indeed the owl:InverseFunctionalProperty is essential, and it would not be true for a cert:signedWith relation that we should probably coin. Because hopefully you can sign more than one document with a key! The same would be true with a cert:encryptedWith relation, as one would like to encrypt any number of documents with the same key. Both something along the lines of a cert:signedWith and a cert:encryptedWith relatinon would be very useful to have in the cert ontology. But they are clearly not going to be equivalent to the cert:key relation ( or your <#hasKey> ). > > What's critical to WebID is the InverseFunctionalProperty relation semantics which help appreciate the optimal domain for <#hasKey> . yes. Agree. > > Conclusion: we need to cater for the fact that public keys can (and will) be associated with all sorts of things (owl:Thing entity types) for a plethora of reasons. Thus, it's best veer away from generic terms (and resulting intuitions) when the usage purpose is very specific. yes. I am in favor of adding relations such as signedWith or encryptedWith to the ontology. Henry > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Kingsley Idehen > Founder & CEO > OpenLink Software > Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com > Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen > Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen > Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about > LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen > > > > > Social Web Architect http://bblfish.net/
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s
Received on Monday, 1 April 2013 20:06:55 UTC